With Several Delhi Riots Cases Collapsing In Courts, Delhi Police Must Face Questions On Accountability
Nupur Thapliyal
30 Aug 2023 10:12 AM IST
"When history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods, will surely torment the sentinels of democracy," a Delhi Court observed in September 2021.Three years on, courts in the national capital have continuously passed strictures against the Delhi...
"When history will look back at the worst communal riots since partition in Delhi, it is the failure of investigating agency to conduct proper investigation by using latest scientific methods, will surely torment the sentinels of democracy," a Delhi Court observed in September 2021.
Three years on, courts in the national capital have continuously passed strictures against the Delhi Police highlighting the loopholes in investigations and fabrication of evidences in the FIRs registered in 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Despite being pulled up by the judiciary regularly on lackadaisical investigation, Delhi riots cases have not seen much improvement as the investigating agency has continued faulty investigations with impunity due to lack of accountability on the part of the erring police officials.
A Look at Recent Acquittals, Discharges in Riots Cases due to Insufficient Evidence and Lack of Proof and Faulty Probe
A recent look at the orders discharging and acquitting accused persons in the last one year in riots cases show that innocent individuals were sought to be inculpated. Resultantly, many of the accused, who mostly belonged to the poor strata and did not even have the sufficient means to afford legal aid, remained behind bars for years. In several cases, the accused were discharged - which means that the Courts did not find the chargesheets showing a triable case. This raises a serious question mark on the efficacy of the investigation.
Recently on August 16, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Court discharged three men, Akil Ahmad alias Papad, Rahish Khan, and Irshad, in a riots case as the Judge was suspicious that the investigating officer of the Delhi Police “manipulated evidence” and filed chargesheets in a “predetermined and mechanical manner”.
"...instead of having a grave suspicion against the accused persons for their involvement in the alleged incidents as reported by four complainants as well as for their involvement in the incidents as observed by ASI Surender Pal in the rukka, I am having suspicion for IO having manipulated the evidence in the case, without actually investigating the reported incidents properly,” the court said.
A few days later, the judge also acquitted one Javed in a riots case and criticised the Investigating Officer (IO) and a Constable for making “artificial statements” about the involvement of the accused in the mob which committed rioting and vandalism. The judge also pulled up the Delhi Police for filing multiple chargesheets in the case in a “mechanical manner” without properly investigating the alleged incidents.
In April last year, six accused namely Ajay, Rohit Saxena, Kuldeep, Utkarsh, Raj and Harender Rawat were discharged in a riots case after the court took note of the inadequate material against them. It was observed that it would be a "sheer wastage of judicial time" if charges are to be framed against them.
An accused Rohit was also acquitted in August last year for lack of evidence, with the court observing that the city police chargesheeted him in a “casual manner”. Days thereafter, Dinesh Yadav was acquitted of all charges as the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish his identity as member of riotous mob beyond all reasonable doubts.
Another sessions judge dealing with riots cases in Karkardooma Courts, ASJ Amitabh Rawat, questioned Police investigation in one of the cases where one Sajid, who was the complainant, was himself arrayed as an accused after probe.
In September last year, Noor Mohammad was acquitted as the sessions court observed that his identification was "probably the outcome of an after thought development" of the probe agency. He was also acquitted in another FIR after two months by the same court as the court found no evidence of any kind of overt act against him.
Same month, the court also acquitted Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh and Rashid in a case observing that the sole testimony of a constable (prosecution witness), who stated that he had seen the accused in the mob, was not found to be sufficient to assume their presence in the mob.
While making scathing observations against the functioning of the Police and prosecution in riots cases, the trial courts have made an effort to improve the situation by referring individual cases to the superior officers i.e. the concerned DCPs and, in some cases, the Commissioner of Police.
However, these referrals, even though with extremely critical remarks, have been without any action ordered against the faulty official or a similar measure to ensure their accountability.
“Callous Investigation”: Cases referred by Courts to Commissioner of Police and DCPs
Judge Pramachala on August 25 rebuked an IO for his “double standard” in investigating a riots case and referred the matter to the Commissioner of Police. The judge also asked the department to “make an assessment of his(IO) conduct.”
This was not the first time the judge was finding faults with the Delhi Police’s functioning. Last year, he called for sensitization of special public prosecutors (SPPs) and IOs for taking steps to drop irrelevant witnesses in the riots cases, rather than obtaining summons for them. He also ordered that IOs be sensitized on making photos obtained from digital sources as admissible in evidence by filing a certificate under sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in the riots cases.
Earlier this year, the judge referred one of the cases to DCP North East and asked him to ensure that all the complaint received in respect of any incident arising out of the riots be investigated and probe be concluded at the earliest possible time.
The helplessness of the judiciary could be evidently seen as the judge had to “remind” the police that it is their duty as the investigating agency to probe into any such complaint and take them to a legitimate end.
In 2021, ASJ Vinod Yadav (now transferred) had discharged various accused in one of the riots cases and pulled up the Delhi Police by observing that the case was solved merely by filing the chargesheet "without any real effort being made to trace out eye witnesses, real accused persons and technical evidence.”
"The casualty in the matter is pain and agony suffered by complainant/victim, whose case has virtually remained unsolved; callous and indolent investigation; lack of supervision by superior officers of investigation and criminal wastage of the time and money of the tax payer,” the judge had said.
However months later, the judge, who had passed several orders against the faulty investigations, was transferred
Also Read: 'Inefficient', 'Poor Standard', 'Lackadaisical' : Critical Observations Made By Now Transferred ASJ Vinod Yadav Against Delhi Police Probe In Riots Cases
In what the courts have been calling as “sorry and shocking state of affairs,” the judicial orders have constantly depicted a similar undertone: the directions have been falling on deaf ears.
Such trials in Delhi riots cases are examples of justice gone wrong. It is also to be noted that with every wrongfully framed person acquitted, the real culprits remain scot free.
Even though Courts have exonerated innocent persons, there is a need for stricter action regarding the sham investigations by the Delhi Police. The glaring flaws in investigation, failure in arresting the real culprits and framing of the innocent through bogus evidences should result in fixing accountability on the errant police officials.
Similar Readings:
"Sorry State Of Affairs, Lackadaisical": 10 Times When Courts Slammed Delhi Police Over Riots Probe In 2021 (2021 publication)
Delhi Riots: Damning Observations In Court Orders Raise Questions Over Delhi Police Probe (2020 publication)
